Ammosexual?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Surely you have some respect for a resturant wanting to create a certain type of atmosphere.

It is private property. The owner or representative can discriminate and can ask them to leave.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
He/she has rights too and it is our job in our everyday life to respect the natural instincts of others.

No. I have no job to respect others. I am not forced to do this by any law.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
These rights you try justify the overuse of in the name of freedom are only afforded to you on the basis that you are capable of remembering that you
have no rights beyond the will of the people.

Yes, my rights end where another person's rights begin.
Walking in public, violating no law where someone ignorantly is gripped with fear because they see a firearm is no violation of rights.
People fear dogs. Should everyone stop walking their dogs in public???

originally posted by: deadeyedick
A certain amount must be maintained by all of us in order to get by believing we are free. It is not a bad system but it is being imploded by pushing
the bounderies and changing the rules as we go.

Seems to be that the boundaries were pushed when laws were rammed through to encroach upon the 2nd Amendment, and now this is what we have.
Some people that have never been around firearms, and are frozen with fear because they were taught it was evil.
A small amount of people that wish to control others and infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.
And a large amount of people that have had enough control and are now pushing back.

Seems the issue should be taken up with those that first pushed for restrictions of rights.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Again you really do not have any rights except what is accepted by everyone and there has to be bounderies on everything.

Nope, wrong, incorrect, don't pass go.
Regardless if you accept them or not, I have the right to Bear Arms, and will exercise said right.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Concealing a weapon is everyones best option as far as security goes cause then everyone you meet has a gun. When i say that i am speaking of
business and such. At the same time i am all for marching and demonstrations in support of the second just respect folks by not walking up in
somewhere making everyone wonder if you are there to shoot em up.

So, you wonder if your going to be shot?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
That would clearly be distrubing the peace.

You really should read into state and local laws on this, as they vary. But fear is not disturbing the peace.
And just because you are in a panic, doesn't justify this, as exercising a right and following the law is protected against this.

As a gun owner, I consider "ammosexual" to be an offensive term. When I see or hear someone use that word I immediately know that I am dealing with an
anti-gun, anti-constitution coward who depends on the government.

A person can buy a car. There are many different cars out there. You can buy a VW bug, or you can buy a Lamborghini. Both can be used to kill someone.
Both can be owned by car nuts. You can go to car shows and see them. You can even buy them from the car shows.

The same with guns and knives.
It's none of anyones business what guns I own. It's my righty as an American. If you don't like it then maybe America isn't for you?

a reply to: macman You make points that most of those points will never hold up to puplic outcry over a few dog owners will
never clean up after their own and then there are their biters. It would be good for you to look at the relationship of places that allow dogs and
what restrictions have been placed on dog ownership based on a few owners that are un responsible. It would be wise to remember that you do have a
moral obligation to the public that goes beyond any law ever made and by forcing that moral boundery you will bring more restrictions in order to make
the moral stance acceptable to you and others that want to ignore the fact that their 7 billion of us here.

It is pretty simple thatthere are always two sides to an argument and to ignore either side is never gonna be the answer but keep in mind that the
people who make laws do so much of the time based on how that law will affect others and when the scenerio of that law maker eating a meal in quite
with family not bothering anyone and along comes a group that is not even putting forth an effort of respect then that is when the 2nd will be in
serious jepordy. Just the same if people walk outside and step in dog poo everytime they do not look at every step they take when all their life the
same walkway has been free of the poo and not the dogs. You can rai up and down all day long about how you do not see the respect factor but i know
different...

originally posted by: deadeyedick
You make points that most of those points will never hold up to puplic outcry over a few dog owners will never clean up after their own and then there
are their biters. It would be good for you to look at the relationship of places that allow dogs and what restrictions have been placed on dog
ownership based on a few owners that are un responsible.

It would be wise to remember that you do have a moral obligation to the public that goes beyond any law ever made and by forcing that moral boundery
you will bring more restrictions in order to make the moral stance acceptable to you and others that want to ignore the fact that their 7 billion of
us here.

I have no such Moral obligation.
I, just like every other US Citizen, have a right to Bear Arms. Exercising of that right supersedes any persons ignorant or irrational fear of a
person with an object.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
It is pretty simple thatthere are always two sides to an argument and to ignore either side is never gonna be the answer

When the opposing side goes against a Right, there is no need to hear it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
but keep in mind that the people who make laws do so much of the time based on how that law will affect others

And when they violate Rights already outlined, the laws are null and void.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
and when the scenerio of that law maker eating a meal in quite with family not bothering anyone and along comes a group that is not even putting forth
an effort of respect then that is when the 2nd will be in serious jepordy.

Making of laws, that violate the Constitution, driven by fear are invalid laws.

Just the same if people walk outside and step in dog poo everytime they do not look at every step they take when all their life the same walkway has
been free of the poo and not the dogs. You can rai up and down all day long about how you do not see the respect factor but i know
different...

Has nothing to do with stepping in dog crap. It has everything to do with ignorant fears people have.
Fear of dogs, does not mean all dogs are locked up.
Fear of guns, does not mean all guns are locked up.
Very simple.

a reply to: macman You seem to think that we are still bound by the constitution and that is not the case. The only reason they
let you still believe that is too maintain appearances. Afterall they would not want all gun owners to know that the patriot act along with other
leglistation has done away with what the country was founded on. Now we are only left with what the scotus allows us to have and that is no where near
what we had when we first had the constitution. The scotus will be who decides if the 2nd survives in any form and they like to eat without being
threatened by people carrying weapons while they wonder if retalliation is in the air for legally taking away what you think you still have.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Just the same if people walk outside and step in dog poo...

The Constitution of the United States of America decrees that I have a right to keep and bear arms, it mentions nothing of dog feces even though
people treat it like it were made of it when they rail against the 2nd Amendment.

a reply to: macman That theory is reality cause those nine sit up their everyday and intruput your rights for you. If you have
not noticed the only reason the thought of the second ammendment is around is because of the sound a gun makes and the damage it can cause. It would
be way gone along the way of our other rights if not for the fact that guns cause fear. the patroit act ushered in a whole new way of life where we
can hold someone forever and give no reason. This is a fact along with many others that hold up in court based on current law. My main point in all
this talk is to show you how it is not beneficial to anyone to stir the pot right now unless we are united against this new system.

We couldbut it's rude,bloody and simpler just to brain them down with facts.

Vets do not take over because the majority are dealing with an induced chemical imbalance givin to them without ever knowing they were a
target of that sort. At least this is true for the majority of the ones that will make a difference. Add on top of that you had a spiritual enemy
running the healthcare system for the vets and just because of tolerence and unbelief in the ability of a person to say one thing and do another. It
seems to be the same further up the ladder. To takeover successfully we should have followed that black guy in the navy yard. That would have gotten
the job done.

The Constitution of the United States of America decrees that I have a right to keep and bear arms, it mentions nothing of dog feces even though
people treat it like it were made of it when they rail against the 2nd Amendment.

You are right but every single decree in that has been
overcome by modern laws and acceptence of those laws and law makers.

It has made an awareness to people that have been very ignorant to the laws.
0bama's push for more gun control has made him the best posterboy for the firearms industry. Sales skyrocketed a couple years ago and have been high
ever since.
It has awoken a sleeping populace to what the 2nd Amendment means and stands for.

a reply to: macman it is a great idea to push 2nd awareness. I am totally all for that but there is a line that can be crossed
when pushing this that will cause the whole thing to go the other direction. Everyone including you and i have the need for a certain amount of
manners and respect for eachother at some point even if we don't want to see it that way. An example would be that it would not be prudent to the
movement to gather for a rally carring the same weapon the shooter had at the theatre in co. where all those were killed. Where perhaps at the same
time someone standing there handing out a well put together flyer on how everyone is safer with having people in the audience that have weapons. In
the most wise scenerio those carring would not be recoginized by the huge gun they have but rather blend in with all the rest.

It has made an awareness to people that have been very ignorant to the laws.
0bama's push for more gun control has made him the best posterboy for the firearms industry. Sales skyrocketed a couple years ago and have been high
ever since.
It has awoken a sleeping populace to what the 2nd Amendment means and stands for.

This is absolutely true. I have a couple friends who are gun dealers and business is incredible. Obama's talking caused a panick and people went
crazy. Even people who didn't own guns were buying! lol Thanks Obama. At least you were good for something.

My manners and politeness has expired. I am tired of tiptoeing around life, to satisfy the ignorant and fearful whims of a minority.

If I have the right to do something, I will do it. Unapologetically, unrepentantly.

If you choose to show some manner of restraint and
respect when you do it there may be a few places of business that choose to not ban guns. It's is clear that open carry tx made a wrong move and got
many places to ban guns when they never would have given a second thought to it. There is no need for apolagies or repentence but do keep in mind that
the battle will be lost without some level of respect.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.